LGAHL Season 8 Les Cunningham Award vote

Before we start, I want to make sure everyone knows that no member of the committee was or will be allowed to vote for an award in which they are nominated.


The Community Vote will be included in the final vote, along with the committee votes.


Also, for Strength of schedule, the lower the number, the tougher your schedule. If your SOS was a 7.8 (Conf) and a 15.2 (League), your average game played would be against the 8th place team in the conference, and 15th in the league as a whole. Really high=really poor SOS.


The finalist for the Les Cunningham for Season 8 of LGAHL PSN as the MVP of the regular season are:


ThomaLong, RW

Overall Production: 113P, 61G, 52A, +94, 269GV, 64TA
Vs. Playoff Teams: 13-2-2, 66P, 35G, 31A, +51, 155GV, 47TA
Vs. Non-Playoff Teams: 10-0-1, 47P, 26G, 21A, +43, 114GV, 17TA
Record: 23-2-3
Strength of Schedule: League (12.14), Conference (6.39)
Team Performance: League (1), Conference (1)

After a back and forth first season outside of the CHL in s7, Thoma found a home as the high flying Wolf Packs top offensive player. Pacing the entire league is points with 113 and finishing 2nd in goals scored with 61, Thoma was a force to be reckoned with against any defence. Thoma helped his team out by earning 49 out of a possible 56 points for the Wolf Pack. He did all of this while having one of the hardest Strength of Schedules in the league and his production against playoffs teams was top notch, sporting a 3.88 PPG average against playoff teams.


CJ x 58, C

Overall Production: 102P, 32G, 70A, +89, 364GV, 92TA
Vs. Playoff Teams: 13-2-2, 66P, 20G, 46A, +51, 247GV, 58TA
Vs. Non-Playoff Teams: 8-0-1, 36P, 12G, 24A, +38, 117GV, 34TA
Record: 21-2-3
Strength of Schedule: League (11.12), Conference (5.96)
Team Performance: League (1), Conference (1)

After a disappointing end to the Iowa s7 season, CJ took management with the Wolf Pack with the goal winning the Calder. Throughout the season, CJ showed that he was ready and willing to do what was needed to help put the Hartford team in the best position to win. Pacing the league with 70 assists, CJ used his understanding of the game and his “thumb” skill to dictate the offense from the middle of the ice, teaming up with Thoma to form one of the most productive forward duos in the league. CJ did not back down from the biggies, posting the best Strength of Schedule in the league and keeping his playoff team production, 3.88 PPG, almost level with his non-playoff team production, 4 PPG.


althewall, LW

Overall Production: 95P, 49G, 46A, +56, 347GV, 63TA
Vs. Playoff Teams: 9-0-0, 34P, 17G, 17A, +22, 132GV, 22TA
Vs. Non-Playoff Teams: 12-3-2, 61P, 32G, 29A, +34, 215GV, 41TA
Record: 21-3-2
Strength of Schedule: League (19.73), Conference (10.04)
Team Performance: League (3), Conference (2)

After posting some very solid numbers over the past seasons in the AHL, althewall took it to the next level in season 8 smashing his career high in points by almost 20 and finishing with 95 points on the season. He did this on the back of a close to 50 goal season, finishing with 49. Helping lead a Charlotte Checkers team to a top 3 spot in the league, althewall showed that he can be one of the highest producing LW in the AHL, a position this season that was quite frankly a step behind the other forward positions in terms of talent depth. Unfortunately, it seems althewall could have helped his team out more by facing tougher competition, as his Strength of Schedule is very bad for someone that hopes to prove they are a top line talent in the league.


Meesta Don, C

Overall Production: 82P, 33G, 49A, +18, 367GV, 82TA
Vs. Playoff Teams: 11-6-3, 49P, 17G, 32A, -1, 269GV, 54TA
Vs. Non-Playoff Teams: 9-0-0, 33P, 16G, 17A, +19, 98GV, 28TA
Record: 20-6-3
Strength of Schedule: League (12.93), Conference (7.00)
Team Performance: League (4), Conference (4)


Once again going back into management, Meesta showed why he is consistently one of the best players in the AHL. Top the 80 point threshold for the first time since s4, Meesta was able to accomplish this while still having one of the best strength of schedules in the league. Meesta was vital in leading his team to the division title, gaining 43 out of a possible 58 points. Meesta Don also did not disappoint against playoff teams as he was able to score at a 2.45 PPG pace.



ImaDoer3, LW

Overall Production: 88P, 40G, 48A, +42, 328GV, 86TA
Vs. Playoff Teams: 8-4-0, 40P, 22G, 18A, +14, 137GV, 42TA
Vs. Non-Playoff Teams: 13-2-1, 48P, 18G, 30A, +28, 191GV, 44TA
Record: 21-6-1
Strength of Schedule: League (17.29), Conference (9.18)
Team Performance: League (2), Conference (1)

Continuing upon is success from past AHL seasons, ImaDoer took his production to the next level and posted a career high in points at 88. ImaDoer was vital in helping his team finish 2nd in the league, gaining 43 out of a possible 56 points. Scoring at a pace of 3.33 PPG against playoff teams, ImaDoer showed that he can continue to put up points against the better teams in the league. Backed by some better defensive play, ImaDoer was able to top the 20 win plateau for the first time in his LG career.

 

A player was required to have 20 wins to be considered for the MVP award.

 

@Chipy_19

 

They league set the requirement that a player needed to have 20 wins to be considered for the award.

 

Les Cunningham Award
Awarded to the league's most valuable player.

Criteria: The MVP may very well be the most difficult award to judge in a league like ours. Many factors must be considered other than what initially meets the eye. All of the following must be considered when determining those who should be nominated for MVP, in no particular order:
1) Production in relation to peers. Players who produce more statistically are generally the most valuable to their teams.
2) Individual record. Individual record is a very important and telling statistic. To be considered for MVP you should be posting at minimum a respectable record.
3) Linemates. This is mainly to note that a player should not be significantly punished during consideration for playing with a talented line. However, players should not significantly benefit during consideration simply for playing on a below average team or with below average linemates.
4) Strength of schedule. In a league where managers (and players, to a certain extent), are able to choose who they play against, it is important to consider strength of opposition when determining individual awards. The main things to examine here are record vs playoff teams as compared to record vs non-playoff teams, as well as statistical production vs playoff teams as compared to vs non-playoff teams. Specifically, a player who plays a majority of his games against stronger teams and has a quality record in these games should be rewarded over players who mainly play against weaker teams.
As far as individual stats are concerned, it is expected that players will get more points against weaker teams. Players should only be downgraded in this area if they acquire a significant and disproportionate amount of their points in games against non-playoff teams. In especially tight cases between players, also consider evaluating the individual lineups that players face throughout the season. Subjectively quantify teams' 1st/2nd/3rd lines, and examine how many of each the players have played against throughout the season, in combination with playoff/non playoff.
5) Team performance. It is extremely rare for a player on a non-playoff team to win MVP. It shouldn't be cut and dry that your team has to make the playoffs to be considered, but note that it should take a rather herculean effort from a player on a non-playoff team to win/be considered for MVP. Examples of this are players on losing teams that display a winning record, significantly better individual production than the rest of their team, all while playing against top quality competition throughout the season.
6) Position. In the AHL, it is extremely rare for a non-forward to win MVP. For a defenseman or goalie to win/be considered for MVP, they would need to put up a seasonal performance that significantly stands out among the peers at their position, along with stacking up in the gauntlet of all other listed criteria.
the the official criteria in the office

and it was a troll to him

Part of me thought it was 20 games?